NABIN CHANDRA GHOSE Vs. NILKAMAL MUKHOPADHYAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the suit was brought by the plaintiff asking for a declaration of his mourusi mokarrari right to certain lands and of his title acquired thereto by adverse possession for upwards of twelve years and for declarations that defendant No. 2 and Bhutni Molla never held the land in suit or paid any rent for the same, that the plaintiff and not defendants Nos. 2 to 8 was in actual possession of the land and the land consisted not of two plots but of only one plot bearing a rental Rs. 3-1-10 gandas and that the rent decrees obtained by defendant No. 1 against defendant No. 2 and Bhutni Molla were collusive and fraudulent and the plaintiff was not bound by those decrees and the land in suit was not liable to be sold in execution thereof.

(2.) It appears that the land in question was the property originally of one Karnadhar Mandal who created a tenancy in Kasim Molla; that was a non-transferable occupancy tenancy. In November 1895, a decree having been obtained against Kasim Molla, the interest of Kasim Molla was sold in execution of the money-decree which had been obtained, and the plaintiff bought the interest belonging to Kasim Molla at such sale. In April 1896, the plaintiff got possession of the land, and he remained in possession up to 1910 and in fact he remains in possession up to the present moment. In 1910, the plaintiff deposited a certain sum in Court because it appears that in 1907 a decree had been obtained by the transferee from Karnadhar, who was defendant No. 1, against Kasim Molla s heirs for four years rent (1903 to 1907) and in order to prevent the tenancy from being sold, the plaintiff, as I have already said, deposited the requisite amount in Court. I ought to mention that in 1898, two years after the plaintiff got possession, Karnadhar, the then owner, sold the property to defendant No. 1 together with the rents which were then in arrears, and it was mentioned in the conveyance that Kasim Molla was one of the tenants who were in arrears for rent: and although the plaintiff had already been in possession for two years at that time the plaintiff s name was not mentioned amongst the tenants whose rents were in arrears.

(3.) Now, the plaintiff, having deposited the money in Court in 1910, proceeded to bring this suit, which, as I have already said, was primarily for a declaration of his right, namely, mourusi mokarrari right to the land in suit.